🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sean.658010713@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>jlr@uas.UUCP (John Lynn Roseman) writes:
>
>|It is NOT true that shrink-wrap licenses are unenforceable.
>|They are not contracts, but are enforceable under copyright law 
>|(in many capitalist countries).  Enforceability under copyright 
>|law does not require explicit agreement by both parties.
>
>The key of the matter is that a shrink-wrap license is not a license
>at all. 

That's not what my lawyer told me (about two years ago, while setting up
a software business).  My understanding of the situation then was that
there was some doubt as to whether the opening of the package as sufficient
to indicate that the buyer accepts the terms of the license.  HOWEVER, I
also was told that this hasn't been tested in court.  (His advice was
that a signed license was the only sure bet, but that a shrink-wrap
license *might be* ok - naturally, he couldn't commit himself on
this, since nobody but a court could really decide!)

The copyright provides a useful backup to the license in case it isn't
valid - in the worst case, at least the buyer won't have the right 
to copy and redistribute the software, since the copyright specifically 
prevents this.

So, do you have any references for your "not a license" statement?
Have things changed in the past two years?  Or is this just speculation?

					Jim Davies
					jrbd@craycos.com